Who are the Jews of Yesha?

[Mediocrates]

I bet you proPal, blind to terror, morally equivalent largely indifferent to the deaths of Jews Anti's think you know who the Jews of Yesha are, don't you? I bet you think of them as fanatics, crude zealots. Sure you do. Well I came across this. And I thought I would share it with you.

http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/yishuvim.htm

It divides the region into 8 areas and lists the communities in each region including population and 'type' such as religious, non religious and so on. One of the first things you will notice that nearly all of the communities with more than a few hundred people are significantly further WEST of Jerusalem.

It lists 82 religious communities , 90 non religious, mixed or urban and 9 are NA.

38 communities have more than 1000 people. 5 have more than 10000 people.

This leaves 143 communities of less than 1000 people each.

You can click on many of the sites and if you do you will see, particularly in the Gush, small communities indistinguishable from what might be the suburban housing development you yourself live in today.

If they were stucco and built on hillsides the 300 or so houses in my development would fit naturally there altough many of the communities have more or a West-Mex-Santa Fe look of them.

That's your invasion, your occupation. You should be embarassed and then ashamed of yourselves.

[Kapiti]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I bet you proPal, blind to terror, morally equivalent largely indifferent to the deaths of Jews Anti's think you know who the Jews of Yesha are, don't you? I bet you think of them as fanatics, crude zealots. Sure you do. Well I came across this. And I thought I would share it with you.
.


[deleted]

[Kapiti]

So this forum is fine for you to make absolutely no point but one of your rantings and ravings but when this pointed out you delete the response.

Is this your embarrasment ??

Explain what is the point of posting if it is not more of your jewish propaganda.

Is it that Jewish fanatics and zealots (your words) can live in normal houses.

Gees thankyou very much for pointing this out.

Wonderful forum if the only postings you allow are those which support your one sided point of view.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
So this forum is fine for you to make absolutely no point but one of your rantings and ravings but when this pointed out you delete the response.

Is this your embarrasment ??

Explain what is the point of posting if it is not more of your jewish propaganda.

Is it that Jewish fanatics and zealots (your words) can live in normal houses.

Gees thankyou very much for pointing this out.

Wonderful forum if the only postings you allow are those which support your one sided point of view.
I was minding my own business, reading another thread when I heard some shrill and bizarre shrieking from another forum. When I dropped in and saw who it was, I understood right away, considering the source. I imagaine we'll hear more as the morning wears on.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I was minding my own business, reading another thread when I heard some shrill and bizarre shrieking from another forum. When I dropped in and saw who it was, I understood right away, considering the source. I imagaine we'll hear more as the morning wears on.

*LOL*

[Kapiti]

MichaelC - Many thanks. When Mediocrates (presumably or his other right winged mates) tries to censor out my post he will have to delete yours, which quotes it in full.

I think this post will go nowhere. For Mediocrates after more than 5,000 postings and having dragged up and distorted everything even remotely relevant he is now dragging up the totally mundane and boring. The quality of housing of the Jewish settlements.

And this is supposed to mean something.

Get a life !

[Mediocrates]

Kapiti

That's right and I will continue to do so. Your post was an insult to me personally and I have decided to develop as thin a skin as you and the people here like you who complain and whine like little children that anyone dare say anything about your personal insults and curses.

If you don't like having a standard I would impose on 9 year olds then I suggest you find another sandbox to play in. This forum is for grown ups.

It is with the utmost patience I don't have you removed outright because I'm willing to believe that you can suddenly develop some maturity. If that's beyond you and all you want is a blog for your Tourette's Syndrome you will told to go find one.

[minusthejihad]

Kapiti,

If anyone is more in need of a life, ITs YOU!

You're neither Jewish nor Palestinian, but some chump in Australia with an Opinion. Well you know what they say opinions, they're just like ..... and everyone has one.

What, you have nothing better to do than to spout your hatred here? Go away troll.

[Mediocrates]

But we should not allow the unmedicated to distract us. The key points are:

Most 'settlements' are secular
Most 'settlements' are west of Jerusalem or suburbs of Jerusalem
Most 'settlements' are tiny
Most 'settlements' have displaced no one

Look Hevron - always in the news and always under attack. 450 people. Ooooh scary!! But the large town Kiryat Arba is in fact miles outside of Hevron an in the middle of nowhere. If terrorists weren't engaged in a full time campaign of wanton murder there would be no need for any of the check points around Kiryat Arba, for example.

The simple and obvious fact is that nearly all of the 9% population of Yesha is made up of small urban-suburban secular communities near or alongside major Jewish metropolitan areas. And even this is intolerable to the Palestinians who make up 20% of the population on the other side of the Green Line.

Tell you what, we'll trade you all of the smaller communities, making up about one third of the total headcount in Yesha for a 1/3rd total headcount reduction of Palestinian Arabs. That would work out to a 3:1 ratio but the Pals get nearly all of the 'settlement' land they want.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Tell you what, we'll trade you all of the smaller communities, making up about one third of the total headcount in Yesha for a 1/3rd total headcount reduction of Palestinian Arabs. That would work out to a 3:1 ratio but the Pals get nearly all of the 'settlement' land they want.


I had lunch with an Arab guy when I was in Israel. Yes, this too happens! He stopped me at one point when I referred to him as an Israeli Arab and told me that he considers himself a Palestinian Arab. (Granted, this was during the intifada and emotions were on high for everyone). At that point, I asked him whether he would consider it a good thing to swap some Arab Israeli villages for some of the Jewish settlements, with the Arab Israeli villages becoming a part of a newly formed Palestinian state. He got really upset with me and started to say that I supported ethnic cleansing and that I was a racist for making such a suggestion.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Wonderful forum if the only postings you allow are those which support your one sided point of view.

Kapiti,

Many of your anti-Israel posts are easy to find here, so please...

Anyway, I wanted to respond to a point that you made whereby you were, as usual, blaming the Jewish victims of Arab terrorism for the situation. I think that the point that you made was that the Jews were to blame for Arab terrorism, because the Jewish settlers dared to raise their families in the Jewish homeland -- something that is apparently worthy of being slaughtered for in your opinion.

I wonder if you also think that the 200 Australian victims of Islamic terrorism in Bali were also to blame for daring to vacation in a predominantly Muslim country?

For what I understand your position to be, anyone who dares to be found in territory that is being claimed by Muslims (whether or not under dispute) should be murdered by Islamists. Is that right, Kapiti?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Communication
I had lunch with an Arab guy ... He got really upset with me and started to say that I supported ethnic cleansing and that I was a racist for making such a suggestion.
Very good point.

I've also noticed that for many Arabs and their anti-Semitic supporters, it's perfectly fine to ethically cleanse Israel of its Jewish citizens. But even the suggestion of doing the very same thing with Arabs is considered a Crime Against Humanity. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

[localbrew]

What does anti-Semitic mean?

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates
To suggest that a swap of Arab Israelis out of Israel for an equal swap of Jews out of Palestine is ludicrous because it equates the rights of the Jews to the Palestinian land to the rights of the Arab Israelis to the Israeli land. The Israeli Arabs earnt their right to live there because they had been living there for countless generations in most areas in a comprehensive majority. The Israeli Jews earnt their “perceived” right to the West Bank and Palestine by invading it, taking control and injecting settlements. Any Jews with a generational background in the West Bank and Gaza were always a substantial minority within the region.

This may be equal to the fanatics but it is not to the rest of the world.

If most means more than 50 percent then I would not argue against the points

Most 'settlements' are secular
Most 'settlements' are west of Jerusalem or suburbs of Jerusalem
Most 'settlements' are tiny
Most 'settlements' have displaced no one

But this really counts for nothing because these settlements have no right to exist in land given to the Palestinians by the same authority which gives Israel good title.

You want a trade why not make it a fair one.

All the Jews who were kicked out of the West Bank and Gaza after 1948 should have fair right of return. Equally all the Palestinians kicked out of Israel at the same time have an equal right of return. You want hypocrisy I’ll show it to you. All those who say the Jews should have rights to return to live in the WB and G but who deny the Palestinians right of return to live in Israel.

Mediocrates Your position has previously been stated that in your opinion if there was ten times the settlers in the WB and G then the problem would be different because moving them would be impractical. Numbers on the ground or something like that was your expression.

Everyone with at least half a brain (Sharonn scrapes in) knows that it is an occupation and eventually it will end and the Palestinians will end up with a home land and autonomy to some degree. When the real peace settlement takes place however having Jewish numbers in the WB and G (who give up their land) will be traded for reduced numbers of Arabs been allowed back into Israel or more of the WB and G land being able to kept as part of Israel.

Your government knows this well which is why it encourages and protects the jewish settlements. Your government also knows that these settlements inflame the Arab population making genuine settlement negotiations more difficult and prolonged. The more prolonged the more settlers move in. It works well for them.

Newsguy
Firstly happily declare me anti-Israeli right wing but that is all.

Australians killed in Bali were welcome visitors by the very substantial majority of the population and made no claim to taking control over any part of the island during their visit.

Contrast this with the fact that the Jewish settlers are unwelcome visitors attempting to take control over many parts of the WB and Gaza.

Your suggestion that there is any similarity is laughable.

[Mediocrates]

But at least we're talking :o kiss noise. Just don't forget that 9% is intolerable to you. So is 3% so is 50 Jews so is one. A Jew Free Palestine that stretches from Cyprus to Amman is what your want.

[Kapiti]

Absolutely not. Religion should not dictate ones right to be able to live in the land. If the Palestinians are happy with Jews and Christians and Buddists living in their land but pledging allegiance to their government I am more than happy for this to occurr

If it initally takes a Jew free Palestine to get real peace however then all the Jews should get out of the region. This should not however be a long term objective.

quick question.

If you got to keep Jerusalem as your capital, no repatriation of Palestinian arabs to Israel, fair access to water, guaranteed peace for the forseeable future, would you give up ALL the land ?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates
To suggest that a swap of Arab Israelis out of Israel for an equal swap of Jews out of Palestine is ludicrous because it equates the rights of the Jews to the Palestinian land to the rights of the Arab Israelis to the Israeli land. The Israeli Arabs earnt their right to live there because they had been living there for countless generations in most areas in a comprehensive majority. The Israeli Jews earnt their “perceived” right to the West Bank and Palestine by invading it, taking control and injecting settlements. Any Jews with a generational background in the West Bank and Gaza were always a substantial minority within the region.

You should put this under your name as a "signature", as the statement pretty much sums up your "position", such as it is. These words underline your ignorance in a manner rarely equalled on this board, though your "intellectual peers" are always striving to do so.

This kind of thinking constitutes a mental prison within which the thinker has confined himself and completely blinds that person to the acquisition of "actual" knowledge on the subject.

I don't think a person who believes what you have posted above has the ability to learn anything new. You have spewed your share of hatred since arriving at this board, and I don't see any value in your continued presence here, even as an object lesson concerning the results of a poor education.

[Communication]

Kapiti,

I just want to clarify an earlier post. What I suggested to that guy was not that Israeli Arabs be removed from where they are now living. Rather, I asked whether he would consider a land swap, involving Jewish settlements in the territories for areas where there is a large Arab majority inside Israel proper. Of course, if Israeli Arabs want to be Israeli, they should be allowed to remain citizens of the state. However, if an Israeli Arab goes through the trouble of correcting me when I refer to him as Israeli, saying that he considers himself Palestinian, then it would seem logical that he would prefer to live where he is living now, only under the Palestinian Authority. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Either way, the border is not likely to be fixed exactly according to the 67 borders when Jordan controlled the West Bank. For security reasons, land swaps will most likely be insisted upon by Israel and they will be necessary in order to connect the former West Bank with the Gaza Strip. The question of whether there will be a Palestinian state is no longer an issue. The issue is who feels most strongly about living under Israeli rule versus Palestinian rule.

Your other point about demographics is weak. While there was for a long time, a majority of Arabs living in the West Bank, there was tremendous Arab immigration into the area during the mandate as well so that most Palestinians are no more indigenous than many Jewish Israelis. Some 900,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab world as a result of this conflict too. The idea of "Justice" should be applied equally in the conflict.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by localbrew
What does anti-Semitic mean?

Literally, irrational hatered of the Semites.
The common defenition of anti semetism is irrational hatered of Jews, for the mere reason they were born.

An anti semite will denys Jews right to exist. Jews right of self determination and Jews right religious and cultural rights.
The anti semite will deny Jews right of self defence, Jews right to carry arms in self defence, later: Jews right of travel, Jews right to have property, limit Jews rights of occupations ect...

Hating a psycho killer or a thief, who happened to be a Jew, is not anti semetism. Hating a Jew even if he is law abiding loyal citizen, as if he is also a psycho killer or a thief, is anti semetism.

Anti semites are different only in their order of priorities of the rights they wish to rob first from Jews:
Religious anti semite want all Jews to convert by force and assimilate, murder those who refuse to convert, ect... then they will murder and persecute all former Jews who try to assimilate of the grounds they are not religious enough or dedicated enough to their forced upon religion.

A racist will deny Jews the right to live, what ever thier culture or religion or affiliation is. Most of all, the racist hates Jewish self defence.

The anti zionist Denial of national rights from Jews alone, while accepting the national rights of any other human group. Modern anti zionists combine today, Marxist philosophy on one hand, which claims that any form of human identity bounds to provoke violance. On the other hand, racism and religious anti semetism, where they consider Jews very existance and Jewish culture as the root for the violance in the ME and around the world. (including: Iran-Iraq war, Gulf wars, Chad-Libia war, Yeman civil war, where Egypt was involved, Lebanon's civil war, Sudan's ongoing civil war, the occuaptiong of west Sahara by Maroccons, the Mauritania's civil wars... ect... ).

- - - * - - - * - - - * - - -

Zionism is the last modern incarnation of an anciant idea, deeply rooted within Jewish culture and religion. The Zionist believe Jews have a national, cultural, religious, historical right to form a nation state in the land of Israel, where Jews govern Jews, Jews serve in an army and activly fight (and some times die), for the defence of their rights if needs be, and only fellow Jews are allowed to become citizens (with few exceptions: non-Jews who saved Jews during the holocaust, for example, are invited to live among us, so are non-Jewish spys who worked for us, ect...)

Israel is the only country in the world, the whole streets is filled with Jews: Drivers, children, politicians, the judges, the men on TV, the models on the advertizing posters, the police, the army... even the criminals are Jewish in Israel. Walk in almost every street in Israel, where ever you'll turn your head, you'll see Jews. No skin heads gangs, no KKK, no nation of Islam, no seirial killers. Try to imagion this one: You'll have to walk more then a hundred miles just to see a church, from where I live. It's five minutes walk to the close synagog, and there are whole streats of synagogs in every majore city. You can by Kosher food, cheap, everywhere. Non-kosher, is a problem... there are few, special stores and restorants which will sell you that, and it will cost you!.

Jewish language, Hebrew, is the official language, Jewish religion the the official religion in Israel, Jewish religious hollydays are also the national holydays. Sunday is a working day, but you'll get a fine and a police report for opening a store on Shabeth, or drive your car (with out a good reasoning) on Yom Kippur. You also can not open a pig farm, with out a special permit (and you'll not get one, either!). And that is only for an example. All of this, only because Israel is our Jewish country, and none other.

Zionism was designed to create a refuge for all Jews around the world from anti semetism, through excersing our national human rights, chiefly: Self defence. IDF is the prime target of most anti semetics and anti zionists around the world.

There is no known way for a Jew to escape Anti semetism. Even if a jew join the anti semetics himself. Too many Jews try to do just that, like Chomsky and many others. A Jew can only defend himself from anti semites. He does so, through Zionism, self defence. Israel is the only country in the world where Jews are allowed to carry arms and fight anti semetics.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Absolutely not. Religion should not dictate ones right to be able to live in the land. If the Palestinians are happy with Jews and Christians and Buddists living in their land but pledging allegiance to their government I am more than happy for this to occurr

If it initally takes a Jew free Palestine to get real peace however then all the Jews should get out of the region. This should not however be a long term objective.

quick question.

If you got to keep Jerusalem as your capital, no repatriation of Palestinian arabs to Israel, fair access to water, guaranteed peace for the forseeable future, would you give up ALL the land ?

Ethnic Cleansing. Ethnic Cleansing. Ethnic Cleansing.

For Jews for the Christians in Palestine reduced from 15% of the population to 2% since the PA took power.

As long as you're clear with that. Kill them all and there will be peace.

[cerulean]

[snip]
Originally posted by Mediocrates
For Jews for the Christians in Palestine reduced from 15% of the population to 2% since the PA took power.


I and others have posted elsewhere about Bethlehem and its vastly shrinking Christian Arab population. So it's not just ethnic cleansing, but religious cleansing that the Palestinian leadership is aggressively seeking.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Kapiti
The Israeli Jews earnt their “perceived” right to the West Bank and Palestine by invading it, taking control and injecting settlements.

Nonsense. The Jewish homeland of Israel is the birthright of all Jews and has been so for thousands of years. The "Palestinians" are squatters who rode in on their camels from the Arabian desert, and are now brutally occupying parts of the Jewish homeland.

You are right to say that there is no comparison between the rights of the Jews and the "Palestinians" when it comes to living in Israel. The Arabs are foreign invaders and modern day squatters in the Jewish homeland. The "Palestinians" have no actual rights to the land, other than those artificially bestowed on them by a hypocritical world blackmailed by Arab oil.


Newsguy
Firstly happily declare me anti-Israeli right wing but that is all.

No, your comments about a "Jew free" Israel show you to be anti-Semitic in a way that is very reminiscent of the original Nazis and Islaminazis who are apparently your role models.

It is sometimes difficult for people like you to face their own racism and acknowledge it, so I will do it for your you.

Australians killed in Bali were welcome visitors by the very substantial majority of the population and made no claim to taking control over any part of the island during their visit.

Contrast this with the fact that the Jewish settlers are unwelcome visitors attempting to take control over many parts of the WB and Gaza.

Australians are obviously NOT "welcome visitors" in the eyes of many members of Bali's Muslim population.

The Muslim terrorism that killed the Australians is identical in every way to the Muslim terrorism against Israelis and against Americans.

Your attempts to whitewash terrorism are laughable, and your attempts to justify the mass-murder of Jewish families is beneath contempt.

[Mediocrates]

I thought I was making a rather simple point. There are no settlers and the people who live in Yesha are for the most part middle class or lower middle class, typically pinched but not poor and by and large live in urban areas in and around the largest urban center in Israel. They are suburbs which is something I've been repeating for years it seems.

Most are secular, not black hats. Most are further west in Israel than Jerusalem itself. Most are built on nothing-land and not amidst Palestinians and Palestinian towns. It's the tiny minority who flock to Jewish Holy sites like Rachel's Tomb who seem to get all the headlines but even there their numbers are tiny - literally in the few hundreds. That's your 'occupation' it's laughable. One wonders what the Palestinians would do if 'occupied' by foreign workers come to rebuild their infrastructure? Kill them all?

It's never been about Palestinians at all. It's about where Jews are suffered to live.

[Kapiti]

Communication - The Jews expelled from the Arab world have a right perhaps to go back to those countries they were expelled from. Relatively speaking very few of them would have been expelled from the WB and G and Jordan so to suggest that the WB and G and Jordan should make amends for the errors of other countries is to suggest that England has an obligation to take back any Jews expelled from Germany during WW2 because the majority in both is Caucasion European. The fact is that most of the Arabs expelled from the Middle East were expelled from other countries. If jews have a problem with this explusion take it up with those countries but don't make the WB and G pay for these errors.

Demographics - Other than perhaps the last 50 years the Jews cannot win this one. Except for isolated pockets of settlements they have been the in the substantial minority for most of the last 2000 years. Indeed archeology I think would show that if Jericho is one of the oldest cotinuously inhabitated cities in the world of more than 10,000 years then Jews have been a majority for less than 2-3000 years at the most.

I would happily debate this one with you.

I understand your point better that many Israeli Arabs would prefer to be living under a Palestinian government. Going back to the green line would appear to be near on impossible. Working out how to reposition the borders to better reflect the preferences of the people within will be even harder. I agree however that establishing more common sense borders via land swaps would probably happen and makes sense.

I told you I would grow a thin skin and delete all the personal insults.

[minusthejihad]

Wow Kapitulation,

You're insults win you so much street cred!

[Mediocrates]

It's sad really because if you deconstruct what s/he types it doesn't vary that much from other people say as a plausible solution, even one or two I've penned myself. But the name calling and thinly veiled hatred, arrogance and snottiness get in the way. Is it ego? Is it anger? I don't know, don't care all that much either. Troll is as troll does.

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates - You have a very thin skin when it suits. It never seems to suit when others are getting personal.

quote
"No, your comments about a "Jew free" Israel show you to be anti-Semitic in a way that is very reminiscent of the original Nazis and Islaminazis who are apparently your role models." unquote

This is not personal ??

"I don't think a person who believes what you have posted above has the ability to learn anything new. You have spewed your share of hatred since arriving at this board, and I don't see any value in your continued presence here, even as an object lesson concerning the results of a poor education"

This is not personal ??

But what I actually like is that you in your last posting actually come closer to saying something constructive than I have seen in anything prior.

I personally take offence at being called anti-semetic and yet this is never edited out.

You never answered my quick question. I am not surprised though. Its a pity you don't have more guts.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Communication - The Jews expelled from the Arab world have a right perhaps to go back to those countries they were expelled from. Relatively speaking very few of them would have been expelled from the WB and G and Jordan so to suggest that the WB and G and Jordan should make amends for the errors of other countries is to suggest that England has an obligation to take back any Jews expelled from Germany during WW2 because the majority in both is Caucasion European. The fact is that most of the Arabs expelled from the Middle East were expelled from other countries. If jews have a problem with this explusion take it up with those countries but don't make the WB and G pay for these errors.

Demographics - Other than perhaps the last 50 years the Jews cannot win this one. Except for isolated pockets of settlements they have been the in the substantial minority for most of the last 2000 years. Indeed archeology I think would show that if Jericho is one of the oldest cotinuously inhabitated cities in the world of more than 10,000 years then Jews have been a majority for less than 2-3000 years at the most.

I would happily debate this one with you.


I told you I would grow a thin skin and delete all the personal insults.


It all depends on how you look at it. If most of the Arab world refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, then why should we recognize some arbitrary distinction between one Arab nation and another, all of which were artificially imposed by the European powers anyway. It's an Arab-Israeli conflict, and we want full recognition of Israel by all Arab countries plus the recognition of what they did to Jews from the ME (perhaps some compensation if the Pals are going to get it) as part of this Road Map deal.

As far as your demographics go, I already said that the Arabs were a majority for a long time, but it's like saying that alllllllllll of Alaska and maybe Eastern Russia too belongs to the Eskimos because there happened to be a couple thousand wandering around out there for a few centuries. If you want to debate demographics with me, that's fine, I'm up for it, since it is the number one device that is used to deny Jews rights to their own country in the ME. However, I find this whole thing very borring, and ironic coming from a colonizer like yourself. But heh, that's we are here for, to bog ourselves down with stupid garbage.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Communication - The Jews expelled from the Arab world have a right perhaps to go back to those countries they were expelled from.

The generosity of this guy is really touching. I suggest we make him a Honorary Elder of Zion.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - You have a very thin skin when it suits. It never seems to suit when others are getting personal.

quote
"No, your comments about a "Jew free" Israel show you to be anti-Semitic in a way that is very reminiscent of the original Nazis and Islaminazis who are apparently your role models." unquote

This is not personal ??

"I don't think a person who believes what you have posted above has the ability to learn anything new. You have spewed your share of hatred since arriving at this board, and I don't see any value in your continued presence here, even as an object lesson concerning the results of a poor education"

This is not personal ??

But what I actually like is that you in your last posting actually come closer to saying something constructive than I have seen in anything prior.

I personally take offence at being called anti-semetic and yet this is never edited out.

You never answered my quick question. I am not surprised though. Its a pity you don't have more guts.

What question would that be?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Kapiti
This is not personal ??

There is a big difference between attacking someone's ideas (allowed) and attacking someone personally (not allowed).

That's why we need to stick to the issues.

The Jews expelled from the Arab world have a right perhaps to go back to those countries they were expelled from.

A few questions -

1. "Perhaps?" Why perhaps and not definitely?

2. How about the Jews' right to financial reparations from the Arab countries who expelled them?

3. Do the rights to reclaim Jewish-owned land, homes and businesses also extend to the descendents of the original Jews who were expelled (ethnically cleansed) by the Arabs?

[Kapiti]

Newsguy -The big difference you talk about is very blurred in this forum. Calling anyone left of the far right wing an anti-semite is a personal insult but is is the favoured language by the right wing. The last two people I have employed have been Jewish. I am sponsoring one of their families to come to Australia but yet I am an anti-semite. Give me a break.

The application of your standards is hypocrisy in the extreme. I do not expect total impartiality given the webforum's background but I expect better than is given.

Regarding the right of Jews to a right of return. I am not sure of the point you are making.

1 If the passage of time is substantial then the right of return is lost. I think this is simply common sense realities. It really depends of course on the law in the country which did the expelling.

2 In civilised countries, compulsory acquistion requires compensation. I think compensation wuold also apply for expulsion. The problem is that civilised countries don't expell.

3 In modern times maybe but not in anything older than modern times.

Really what is the point of all this.

Mediocrates - Quick quesiton not answered. If you got to keep Jerusalem as your capital, no repatriation of Palestinian arabs to Israel, fair access to water, guaranteed peace for the forseeable future, would you give up ALL the land ?


Newsguy - You say : The Muslim terrorism that killed the Australians is identical in every way to the Muslim terrorism against Israelis and against Americans.

Identical in every way ?

Last time I checked the Indonesisan government was predominatly muslim and the Israeli governement was not. Protest and retaliation against the government is a prime motivation for the terrorism in Israel whereas it had nothing to do with the terrorism in Indonesia. There are similarities between 9/11 and Bali but if you think the motivation is similiar between Israel and Bali you are kidding yourself.

Communication - If Israel had done its colonizing when whites were taking over black Australia and Americans were conquering the wild west then there would be no dispute. Israel was at least 50 years late.

Aurthur Miller recently suggested that Israel wanted to turn the clock back to when it was acceptable for nations 'to expand beyond their natural borders'. He had it right. It is all in the timing.


Newsguy - You say "Nonsense. The Jewish homeland of Israel is the birthright of all Jews and has been so for thousands of years. The "Palestinians" are squatters who rode in on their camels from the Arabian desert, and are now brutally occupying parts of the Jewish homeland"

These squatters have been there for more than a thousand years. They are no longer squatters. On the basis of your argument what the hell are you doing in America. Squatting on Indian land.

Just because you really want something, it doesn't mean you get to have it. Seems to me that non jews have been the dominant people of what you call Israel for much more than twice as long as the Jews have. Why exactly does this not make it their homeland.

[danholo]

Because these other people have come to the land as conquerors - in thirst for more land - just to leave Israel to rot as "a title deed". Jews on the other hand go to Israel and make something of Israel, they love the land, respect it and make it home. An only home.

[Communication]

Kapiti,

I don't have time to respond to your post now, but I'll prepare something for you either later today or this evening.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - Quick quesiton not answered. If you got to keep Jerusalem as your capital, no repatriation of Palestinian arabs to Israel, fair access to water, guaranteed peace for the forseeable future, would you give up ALL the land ?



No.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Newsguy -The big difference you talk about is very blurred in this forum. Calling anyone left of the far right wing an anti-semite is a personal insult but is is the favoured language by the right wing.
I know many Leftists who are true humanists. But unlike you, they do not advocate a Jew-free solution to the Mideast conflict, because they are not anti-Semites.

Perhaps it's time you examined your views and ask yourself why you think that Jews (or any other religious group) should be barred form living somewhere based on their religion.

The last two people I have employed have been Jewish. I am sponsoring one of their families to come to Australia but yet I am an anti-semite. Give me a break.
Did you happen to mentioned to them your "Jew-free" ideas during the job interview? :)

1 If the passage of time is substantial then the right of return is lost. I think this is simply common sense realities.

An interesting point, because many of the the Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza are aleady third-generation residents, while other Jews have lived for thousands of years in areas designated to be handed over the Palestinian entity. I guess you'd agree, then, that those Jews shouldn't even be asked to leave their rightful homes?

I think compensation wuold also apply for expulsion. The problem is that civilised countries don't expell.
Well, one can argue that European countries are not civilized of course.

But Israel did not expell the vast majority of the Arabs. Instead, the Arabs left to make way for the invading Arab armies to more easily massacre all Jewish residents of Israel in 1948.

The compensation that should be paid, however, is from the Arabs to Israel, for their expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, for launching 5 costly wars against Israel, and for sponsoring terrorism against Israeli citizens for the past 100 years.

Newsguy - You say : The Muslim terrorism that killed the Australians is identical in every way to the Muslim terrorism against Israelis and against Americans.

Correct. Both are the products of the Muslim extremists burning desire to conduct a Jihad-genocide against all non-Muslims.

These squatters have been there for more than a thousand years. They are no longer squatters. On the basis of your argument what the hell are you doing in America. Squatting on Indian land.

I've always maintained that the Indians have a bonafide claim to the land we Americans live on. Same with the Aborigines of Australia.

I would not be at all surprised if at some point in the future this claim is exercized successfully.

Seems to me that non jews have been the dominant people of what you call Israel for much more than twice as long as the Jews have. Why exactly does this not make it their homeland.
There have always been Jews and non-Jews living in Israel. However, the Canaanites, Hitites, Yevusis, etc. have long since disintegrated as nations.

The Jews, on the other hand, have continuously lived in Israel for thousands of years as a distinct nation and culture.

The fact that some Muslim robbers rode in on their camels from the Arabian desert 600 years ago, threatening to chop off the heads of all "non-believers," does not give the Arabs any claim to the land of the Jews.

Nonetheless, the sad reality is that the world, blackmailed by Arab oil, is ready to forcefully give parts of the Jewish homeland to the Arab mass-murderers who now all of a sudden call themselves "Palestinians."

[Kapiti]

Newsguy - Where exactly do I advocate a Jew free solution to the middle east conflict. Show proof or admit your mistake.

"Both are the products of the Muslim extremists burning desire to conduct a Jihad-genocide against all non-Muslims. " I love this one. I think its called paranoia.

"Perhaps it's time you examined your views and ask yourself why you think that Jews (or any other religious group) should be barred form living somewhere based on their religion" I don't think this. I believe in religious freedom.

Do you make all this up ? Please read what I write more carefully.

[Mediocrates]

You claimed no Jews can live in Palestine in post #14 in this thread.

[NewsGuy]

And #16.

[minusthejihad]

Ouch. I just went back and reread those posts, and I must say, that you must be pretty embarassed to call someone out like that and then get sprung like that. Damn. Worst part is, is that you said it more than once. Hehe. That made my day! Thanks Kapiti!

At least you've taken Takeo's role since me must be out on a pogrom or an ISM reunion lately!

[Communication]

Kapiti,


You seem to think that the Palestinians deserve both an independent Palestinian state and the choice of living in either Palestine or Israel. There is no basis for it other than the Palestinians insisting that they are somehow entitled to something more than any other refugee population in the world. What makes the Palestinian situation unique is the fact that they have not been fully aborbed by other countries. Israel is not "late", as you say; it is unique for reasons that are not entirely Israel's fault. At around the same time that Israel was created, resulting in the 1948 war, the world was experiencing one of the most explosive periods in the rise of new nations as well as the effects of two world wars. Here's some perspective:


Turkey-Greece:
Post-Ottoman Turkey, in the 1920s, expelled several million Pontic Greeks from Turkish land; hundreds of thousands of Muslim Turks were expelled by Greece and repatriated to Turkey. In the recent past, Greeks and Turks on Cyprus have separated themselves into discrete populations on either side of a dividing line.

India-Pakistan:
Tens of millions of Muslims fled India in 1947 for the Muslim state of Pakistan, and tens of millions of Hindus fled what was to become Pakistan for predominantly Hindu India. Almost one million Hindus and Muslims were killed as a result of the creation of Pakistan.

Creation of Iraq:
Starting in the 1930s, the Iraqi rulers proceeded to kill or drive out large numbers of Christian Assyrians and then Jews. More recently, the Arabs have violently driven out of ancient Kurdish lands hundreds of thousands of Kurds, and Arabized the country.

Egypt
In Egypt, beginning with the riots in September 1951, large groups of Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Italians had their property seized, and were forced out of Alexandria and, subsequently, out of once-cosmopolitan Egypt.

Libya:
Qaddaffi has on more than one occasion expelled fellow-Arabs, mostly Egyptian and "Palestinian" Arabs, in the tens of thousands, and also recently expelled tens of thousands of black Africans.

Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabia expelled more than 1 million Yemeni Arab workers overnight, claiming to fear an internal threat of subversion.

Morocco and Algeria:
Morocco and Algeria, in their proxy war over the Polisario movement, expelled each other's nationals.

Kuwait:
In 1991, 400,000 "Palestinian" Arabs were forced out of Kuwait because of their collaboration with the Iraqi invaders.

Modern Czechoslovakia:
Expulsion of ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland, the region where the Germans had been living for some 600 years.

Europe Generally:

Very recently, the Europeans got together to discuss the road map. The senior German minister listened attentively, and then said: "This is an issue with which we in Germany are familiar; may I ask my German colleagues in the audience to raise their hand if they, or their families, were refugees from Eastern Europe?"
There was a moment of silence - the issue is embarrassing in Germany, fraught with political and moral landmines. Slowly, hands were raised: by my count, more than half the Germans present (government officials, journalists, businessmen) raised a hand: they, or their families, had been Vertriebene, expelled from their ancestral homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia after World War II.
It is estimated that up to 10 million were expelled; with their descendants today they make up almost double that number - almost one in four Germans.
Amid the hush the German senior minister continued: He himself was born in Eastern Europe and his family was expelled in the wake of the anti-German atmosphere after 1945. "But," he added, "neither I nor any of my colleagues claim the right to go back.
"It is precisely because of that that I can now visit my ancestral hometown and talk to the people who live in the house in which I was born - because they do not feel threatened, because they know I don't want to displace them or take their house."
The minister went on to explain that peace in Europe is today embedded in this realization. Had Eastern European countries thought that millions of ethnic Germans would like to return, "the Iron Curtain would have never come down."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1058413673474


The list above is by no means exhaustive. Interestingly, out of all the major refugee cases in the past century, the Palestinian refugee problem would have been the easiest to resolve. By faith, by language, by race and by social organization, the Palestinians are indistinguishable from their fellows of the host and neighboring countries. There was [and still is] room for them, and land for them. More unusually, there was money for them to make the integration possible. In 1952, The United Nations General Assembly voted a sum of 200 million dollars to provide 'homes and jobs' for the Arab refugees. That money was rejected, not because the Palestinians were strangers in a strange land, but simply for political reasons.

I’ll post something in a bit on the right of return….

[Kapiti]

NewsGuy / Mediocrates- I have asked for evidence that I have suggested anywhere that I advocate a Jew-Free solution to the Mid-East.

You respond with reference to prior posts 14 and 16. Read them again. And the posts before and in between.

It is obvious that I am talking about removing the Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza and that it is all. The thread title refers to Yesha. This is an Hebrew Acronym for Judea,(YEJUDA) Samaria(SHOMRON) and Gaza (AZAH). (You seem to be unaware of this)

Yes I think

What you have written is either :

A Negligent in the extreme
B An outright lie which you have intentionally made
C Blatant stupdity and rubbish.
D All of the above.

You may take your pick. (Unfortunately there is no E - None of the above.

minusthejihad - The "play" boy of this forum-- Lovely to hear from you again. I must admit though I am a bit surprised that you are still showing up around here.

I am even more surprised that you would think that I would be embarassed. Clearly you did not bother to read the posts that Newsguy/Mediocrates referred to. You would know all about embarassment of course. Lets go back to some earlier posts

I said : "Many however treat this forum as a site of "jewish mastabation".

What was your classic response. : "Come here, let me use you as a target. "

I suppose once a "play" boy, always a "play" boy.

What will be interesting will be whether Newsguy and Mediocrates censor this post because Minusthe looks like a fool whereas they allowed the original post through in full.

Communication - Your comments are worthy of a real response. My apologies for doing some house-keeping before dealing with the only serious response to my comments.

You seem to be making two points One dealing with the issue of "lateness" of the Jewish nationalism and the other dealing with "right of return".

Let me respond to the latter first because it is easy. I do not want a debate on "right of return" because largely speaking I do not believe in the right of the Palestinians to return to Israel.

The issue of lateness is more interesting.

The difference between the examples you quote and the Israeli situation was that in the cases you quote the majority were kicking out or transfering the minority. In Israel it was the minority taking a position of control over the majority.

Although you are right there has been much change over the last 50 years I don't think anything you have referred to helps your position. The Jewish movement into the region over the last 100 years was late. The colonilsation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was too late.






__________________

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti

It is obvious that I am talking about removing the Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza and that it is all. The thread title refers to Yesha. This is an Hebrew Acronym for Judea,(YEJUDA) Samaria(SHOMRON) and Gaza (AZAH).




That is where they live in your map of Palestine, the "West Bank" is Yesha - Gaza. Look on a map and think a minute or two before you type.

[Mediocrates]

And since most of your post is a personal attack it probably should be scrubbed or at least those parts of it. But that's what you want, isn't it? "Boo Hoo evil zionists strangling me -" I think your lack of any real sense of reality is negligent in the EXTREME too.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Let me respond to the latter first because it is easy. I do not want a debate on "right of return" because largely speaking I do not believe in the right of the Palestinians to return to Israel.__________________

Good, that save me the trouble of having to develop that any further.

Originally posted by Kapiti
The issue of lateness is more interesting.

The difference between the examples you quote and the Israeli situation was that in the cases you quote the majority were kicking out or transfering the minority. In Israel it was the minority taking a position of control over the majority.

Although you are right there has been much change over the last 50 years I don't think anything you have referred to helps your position. The Jewish movement into the region over the last 100 years was late. The colonilsation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was too late.__________________

The way that you describe Jewish immigration into Palestine as "late" is absurd, insensitive and insulting. As if those Jews had any choice in the matter, as if they were somehow responsible for what Hitler did in Europe or that countries like Great Britain and the United States closed their doors to Jewish refugees because of quotas, choosing instead to send boats back to Germany.

If you look at Jewish immigration into Palestine, you will see that the overwhelming majority of immigrants didn't come with the intent of colonizing the land, they came because they were looking to escape persecution in Europe. It was a matter of life or death. So whether they were "late" or not, is only of consequence to the millions of Jews who did not make it out in time.

Jewish Immigrants to Palestine:

1919 1,806
1920 8,223
1921 8,294
1922 8,685
1923 8,175
1924 13,892*
1925 34,386*
1926 13,855*
1927 3,034
1928 2,178
1929 5,249
1930 4,944
1931 4,075
1932 12,533
1933 37,337
1934 45,267
1935 66,472*
1936 29,595
1937 10,629
1938 14,675
1939 31,195
1940 10,643
1941 4,592



*In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6

[Communication]

Arab Immigration:

In contrast to Jewish immigration, which was subject to severe limitations by the British, Arab immigration flowed into Palestine completely unrestricted.

In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”

[Communication]

Original demographics:

This is the heart of the Palestinian claim of a right to the "land" (all the land). While Arabs admittedly were the majority, it wasn't an overwhelming majority (about 4 to 1) and we are talking about at most (meaning that the earliest census figures available from the Ottomans may have inculded transjordan as well), what would today be considered the population of an average sized city.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs (now about 1 in 6). According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while the Jewish population stagnated.

The Arab claim is based purely on the speculation of demographics, while the Jewish claim is historical as well as legal. To challenge the Palestinian contention, is to challenge their self-selected criterion for sovereignty. That's not the case with the Jewish claim. The Arab Palestinian population—large or small, growing or not—is determined, they insist, strictly by speculative birth and death rates among Arab Palestinians in Palestine. This view of their population origin is based on their insistence that Arabs have not only been disinclined to migrate out of or into Palestine but also that Arab Palestinians have been disinclined to move from one region to another within Palestine. Any analysis of the patterns of migration in historic Palestine proves that this is entirely false. The Arabs historically were largely migratory people and Arab leaders have testified to that fact numerous times. The Arabs came when the Jews started investing in the land making the land economically attractive.

[MichaelC]

Kapite, and another poster, have decided to post personally provocative messages to challenge the board admin. I am not part of the board admin or I would simply ban them both as irrelevant to the ongoing exchange at this Board.

What I do find more than amusing in their verbal fluounderings is their obvious sense of being some sort of free speech heroes.

It is difficult to refrain from swatting at stinkbugs buzzing about one's head, but that is pretty much the only response these insects are looking for.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Kapiti
minusthejihad - The "play" boy of this forum-- Lovely to hear from you again. I must admit though I am a bit surprised that you are still showing up around here.

Thanks. I like flattery. Why is that Mr. Kapiti?


I am even more surprised that you would think that I would be embarassed. Clearly you did not bother to read the posts that Newsguy/Mediocrates referred to. You would know all about embarassment of course. Lets go back to some earlier posts

Actually, I did reread most of this thread and those 2 specific posts, but I can clearly see that you are 1)embarassed and 2) on the defensive. I would be in your situation too, I guess, so I don't fault you for having human emotions, though I doubt if they're ever genuine anyway, otherwise, why would you take so much time typing to me if you weren't in some way, shown for what you are.

I can repost each example of what you said if that is needed, however, 1) you probably went back and edited them by now and 2) I suppose most people went back on their own and laughed too upon reading what you wrote and your denial of it later on. But since most of us have seen Arafat speak on more than one occassion, it's really nothing new coming from you.


I said : "Many however treat this forum as a site of "jewish mastabation".

What was your classic response. : "Come here, let me use you as a target. "

I suppose once a "play" boy, always a "play" boy.

Yeah, I suppose. You sure have a strange way of insulting people, but I'll take the compliment for what its worth. Also, don't hate me for being beautiful, or good at retorts to your insults, just hate me because I'm Jewish and most likely better than you at everything, except masturbation - since you sure like to talk about it so much. ;)

What will be interesting will be whether Newsguy and Mediocrates censor this post because Minusthe looks like a fool whereas they allowed the original post through in full.


What post are you talking about exactly? The target post? What's interesting is that your entire post was a long tirade full of insults and insinuations, but yet its still up. So just be happy you still have a place to espouse your Jew hatred, big guy.

[Kapiti]

Communication - You say " The way that you describe Jewish immigration into Palestine as "late" is absurd, insensitive and insulting. As if those Jews had any choice in the matter, as if they were somehow responsible for what Hitler did in Europe or that countries like Great Britain and the United States closed their doors to Jewish refugees because of quotas, choosing instead to send boats back to Germany"

What happened in Germany was a terrible terrible thing but none of this is the point. I do not comment on the reasons for the lateness or try to be insensitve, absurd or insulting. Merely I comment on the time comparison.

If the Jews had busily been killing or displacing or taking the land of the natives like the Spanish did in the 1700/1800s in South America and the white European/Americans did to the Indians in the 1700/1800s and the Australians did to the Aborigines in largely the 1800s then none of this would be a problem, (except as a matter of some guilt). As I understand it Zionism only began around 1880 (?) which was at the end of the period when more advanced populations were taking so blatantly taking advantage of the less advanced.

""The Arab claim is based purely on the speculation of demographics, while the Jewish claim is historical as well as legal. To challenge the Palestinian contention, is to challenge their self-selected criterion for sovereignty. That's not the case with the Jewish claim. The Arab Palestinian population—large or small, growing or not—is determined, they insist, strictly by speculative birth and death rates among Arab Palestinians in Palestine. This view of their population origin is based on their insistence that Arabs have not only been disinclined to migrate out of or into Palestine but also that Arab Palestinians have been disinclined to move from one region to another within Palestine. Any analysis of the patterns of migration in historic Palestine proves that this is entirely false. The Arabs historically were largely migratory people and Arab leaders have testified to that fact numerous times. The Arabs came when the Jews started investing in the land making the land economically attractive""

I don't think your argument is strong. The Jewish historical claim is long out of date. Continous presence alone is not enough because the Arabs had this same continuous presence argument and in much larger numbers. In the democratic times that we live in having the numbers on the ground is they key issue and even assuming your numbers and I think most of your assumptions then you say yourself that the Jews were in a very substantial minority right up to at least 1922. Indeed outnumbered by three to one at all relevant times.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti


What happened in Germany was a terrible terrible thing but none of this is the point. I do not comment on the reasons for the lateness or try to be insensitve, absurd or insulting. Merely I comment on the time comparison.

If the Jews had busily been killing or displacing or taking the land of the natives like the Spanish did in the 1700/1800s in South America and the white European/Americans did to the Indians in the 1700/1800s and the Australians did to the Aborigines in largely the 1800s then none of this would be a problem, (except as a matter of some guilt). As I understand it Zionism only began around 1880 (?) which was at the end of the period when more advanced populations were taking so blatantly taking advantage of the less advanced.

No, it wouldn't have worked, or rather, it didn't work. You have to look at the conditions that the Jews were willing to come back under and that is by being delivered by a promised Messiah. Until that time, they were willing to endure all the pogroms in Europe and second class citizenship under the Muslisms because they believed that it was only a matter of time before they would be vindicated by this deliverer. Throughout Europe and the ME, the Jews were lined up to go back to the land in the 1600s (a time period that fits in with your thinking) under a man named Sabbatai Zevi. The Muslims put a stop to it, threatening to kill him unless he converted to Islam. So he converted, and the Jews lost another Messiah.


Originally posted by Kapiti

I don't think your argument is strong. The Jewish historical claim is long out of date. Continous presence alone is not enough because the Arabs had this same continuous presence argument and in much larger numbers. In the democratic times that we live in having the numbers on the ground is they key issue and even assuming your numbers and I think most of your assumptions then you say yourself that the Jews were in a very substantial minority right up to at least 1922. Indeed outnumbered by three to one at all relevant times.

I disagree that the Jewish claim is out of date. The very fact that the Jews have preserved our uniqueness the entire time we lived in the diaspora testifys to that claim. Had we been like the Assyrians or the Babylonians or any number of other conquered nations, we would have been fully absorbed into the dominant culture. As far as numbers are concerned, whether it was 1 in 3 or 1 in 5, it shouldn't matter considering the size of the overall population. Those kinds of numbers didn't warrant a claim to the entire landscape. Under the original mandate, the Jews were offered far more than they finally received under the partition plan. And since so many Jews were indigenous to the ME (and now I'm talking about all of the Jews in the ME) surely they were deserving of something being carved out for them in that entire region. In addition to demographics, the modern world does still consider equity and the right to self-determination.

[Mediocrates]

So K- boiled all down, your last post:


Zionism is different from nazism only by the date of its formation.

1 Jew (or 3 or 5) is too many.

[Mediocrates]

What's more interesting though is that you K - ignore the header of this thread. You ignore the simple reality of NOW and prefer instead to write revisionist history. How.......typical of you. Can't bear to be called out, can you?

[MGB8]

Kapiti,

Your argument is "because the Arabs had a demographic majority in a land, they are entitled to both (1) ownership of it (regradless of title or sovereign or how they came to be in the land) and (2) the exclusion of any other peoples in the land - they are allowed to be racists."

That argument is illigocal, senseless, and baseless.

The Israeli Arabs have NO RIGHTS to the land except for any that was owned under title...which is NOT the case for the VAST MAJORITY of the Arabs.

Nor is the WB Arab land - it was British land and then Jordanian land. Jordan renounced the claim on it. The ONLY valid sovereign claim on the land is ISRAEL's.

However, the Arabs have a point that Israel is not doing a good thing - living up to western (as opposed to Arab) standards by governing the area without representing them (although that is what ALL ARAB COUNTRIES DO)...and so, they have a NON-SOVEREIGN claim...but NOT to ownership of the land...but to ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP. Since Israel doesn't want to commit demographic suicide, the claim converts to one on the land. However....transfer is a legitimate, if not well liked, option. After all, it is not a taking of life, but an expulsion of an enemy from your land.

Moreover, you ignore illegal Arab immigration from Jordan, as well as the fact that there have been TWICE the amount of arab settlements in the WB started since 67 than the amount of Jewish settlements - why can one group settle in land and another can't - again - much of this land is UNOWNED, so were not talking property rights here.

We're really talking about Arab-Islamic IMPERIALISM and RACISM.

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates - [deleted]
Communication - " No, it wouldn't have worked, or rather, it didn't work. You have to look at the conditions that the Jews were willing to come back under and that is by being delivered by a promised Messiah. Until that time, they were willing to endure all the pogroms in Europe and second class citizenship under the Muslisms because they believed that it was only a matter of time before they would be vindicated by this deliverer. Throughout Europe and the ME, the Jews were lined up to go back to the land in the 1600s (a time period that fits in with your thinking) under a man named Sabbatai Zevi. The Muslims put a stop to it, threatening to kill him unless he converted to Islam. So he converted, and the Jews lost another Messiah"

A sad story for the Jewish faith no doubt but quite irrelevant to what we are talking about. During the times in question it does not matter why they didn't return in masses to stake their claim it simply matters that they were not there.

You say "Under the original mandate, the Jews were offered far more than they finally received under the partition plan. " This is one which is a joke. At the time of the original mandate the British were not in control of the area. Consaquently it really does not matter what they said at that time. They were interested third parties but that was all. When they had active control after WW1 then they realised that it was a bit more complicated and their undertakings not to predjudice the rights of the indigenous peoples (the Arabs as they had in mind) then came to the fore (as of course it should have).

It is simply not true that the mandate offered them more than they were given. You may interpret "in" to necessarily mean "all of" but most don't. I concede that it is ambiguous and perhaps intentionally so.

One of the reasons why the British developed the mandate was retain the support of the Jewish supporters in Britain and elsewhere who were very important for the war effort.

I am sure you disagree that the Jewish claim is not out of date but after almost 2,000 years there would not be many non Jews others who would agree with you. (and certainly no Arabs).

The reason why Israel is what it is today may be motivated by the history but it is caused by the Zionist efforts at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. They got a good claim to a good part of the region legitmately (and then took a bit more in 1967 illegitimately)

MGB8 - "Nor is the WB Arab land - it was British land and then Jordanian land. Jordan renounced the claim on it. The ONLY valid sovereign claim on the land is ISRAEL's"

I remember your arguments from prior posts on this one.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza had a claim to all their land within these boundaries given to them by the UN which was not/ is not extinguished by either the occupation of Jordan/Egypt or by Israel.

The fact that it is as simple as this is accepted by almost the entire world except for the right winged Jews who have obvious reasons for not accepting this plain truth.

[Mediocrates]

Continually you can't actually face reality so instead you go back to revisionism time and time again. Why is it you have no comment about the actual topic? Doesn't matter? One dead Jew's as good as another? Harping on 'race' like all good racists do?

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti



A sad story for the Jewish faith no doubt but quite irrelevant to what we are talking about. During the times in question it does not matter why they didn't return in masses to stake their claim it simply matters that they were not there.

The point, Kapiti, is that the Jews wanted to go back and tried to go back. The difference between you and me is that the British were a colonial power with a colonial army. The Jews had no army. They could not have done what the British did in Australia. So your whole point about being late is ridiculous because it was impossible.

Originally posted by Kapiti

You say "Under the original mandate, the Jews were offered far more than they finally received under the partition plan. " This is one which is a joke. At the time of the original mandate the British were not in control of the area. Consaquently it really does not matter what they said at that time. They were interested third parties but that was all. When they had active control after WW1 then they realised that it was a bit more complicated and their undertakings not to predjudice the rights of the indigenous peoples (the Arabs as they had in mind) then came to the fore (as of course it should have).

It is simply not true that the mandate offered them more than they were given. You may interpret "in" to necessarily mean "all of" but most don't. I concede that it is ambiguous and perhaps intentionally so.

One of the reasons why the British developed the mandate was retain the support of the Jewish supporters in Britain and elsewhere who were very important for the war effort.

Balfour Declaration......1917
WWI ended officially with the Treaty of Versailles....June 28, 1919
Faisal-Weizmann agreement.....1919*
Churchill severed 4/5th of Palestine (aprox. 35,000 miles) to create a new Arab emirate, Transjordan, which was closed to Jewish settlement...1921
The Palestine Mandate.........July 24, 1922
Peel Commission Parition Plan.....1937

*http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/5bff833964edb9bf85256ced00673d1f?OpenDocument

"...Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [sc. in relation to the demands in the Memorandum] I shall not be bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever...."

(signed) FAISAL IBN HUSAIN (in Arabic)

The British and French did not follow through with their promises to the Arabs, carved the place up so that they could retain their control in the region and Faisal's promise to the Jews was null-in-void. The problem was, that by that time, the momentum for the zionist enterprise was already well under way, and the events of Europe reinforced the necessity of carrying out what had already been started.


Originally posted by Kapiti

I am sure you disagree that the Jewish claim is not out of date but after almost 2,000 years there would not be many non Jews others who would agree with you. (and certainly no Arabs).

If you are unwilling to even consider our historic claim, tell me why I should consider yours? What entitles you to even have an oppinion in this matter, let alone to decide whoose oppinions count and whoose don't based only on the criteria that you select. You are very arrogant.

Originally posted by Kapiti
The reason why Israel is what it is today may be motivated by the history but it is caused by the Zionist efforts at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. They got a good claim to a good part of the region legitmately (and then took a bit more in 1967 illegitimately)).



Good, so I somehow managed to get you to admit two things:

1. The Arabs should not be entitled to a "right of return" in addition to the creation of a Palestinian state.

2. The Jewish people "got a good claim to a good part [that's still debateable] of the region legitimately."

As far as he 67 war goes, it's been discussed at great length on this board, so I'll just make a few comments on it. Israel entered into the war from a defensive position. AFter they won, they offered the Palestinians soverignty in a majority of the captured territory, something that neither Jordan or Egypt ever did. Arafat turned Israel down and the ARabs voted no negotitation with Israel and no recognition of her. That remained their policy until Oslo. Even the Oslo Accords recognized the right to "natural expansion" for those settlements that existed prior to the agreement, with the idea that all disputed territory would be dealt with through the culmination of a final agreement. There are two sides to Resolution 242, which says that Israel is entitled to exist in recognized and secure borders. Given the enmity that exists between the two sides, it is hard to define what secure borders means. I do not fault Israel for the creation of settlements prior to Oslo, or for expansion of existing settlements to the extent that it was allowed under Oslo. I personally fault Israel only for the creation of new settlements post Oslo. I see that as a violation of the agreement that they entered into presumably in good faith. That being said, the Palestinians also violated every provision of Oslo too.

[MGB8]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - [deleted]
MGB8 - "Nor is the WB Arab land - it was British land and then Jordanian land. Jordan renounced the claim on it. The ONLY valid sovereign claim on the land is ISRAEL's"

I remember your arguments from prior posts on this one.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza had a claim to all their land within these boundaries given to them by the UN which was not/ is not extinguished by either the occupation of Jordan/Egypt or by Israel.

The fact that it is as simple as this is accepted by almost the entire world except for the right winged Jews who have obvious reasons for not accepting this plain truth.


1) the Pal Arabs ABANDONED their claim to a country by NOT PRESSING IT against JORDAN OR EGYPT. In fact, Yasser Arafat SPECIFICALLY STATED, pre-1967, that the Pal-Arabs WERE NOT claiming the WB...it was officially part of Jordan. Ditto Gaza & Egypt.

In other words...na na na...you are wrong.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti

If the Jews had busily been killing or displacing or taking the land of the natives like the Spanish did in the 1700/1800s in South America and the white European/Americans did to the Indians in the 1700/1800s and the Australians did to the Aborigines in largely the 1800s then none of this would be a problem, (except as a matter of some guilt). As I understand it Zionism only began around 1880 (?) which was at the end of the period when more advanced populations were taking so blatantly taking advantage of the less advanced.

""The Arab claim is based purely on the speculation of demographics, while the Jewish claim is historical as well as legal. To challenge the Palestinian contention, is to challenge their self-selected criterion for sovereignty. That's not the case with the Jewish claim. The Arab Palestinian population—large or small, growing or not—is determined, they insist, strictly by speculative birth and death rates among Arab Palestinians in Palestine. This view of their population origin is based on their insistence that Arabs have not only been disinclined to migrate out of or into Palestine but also that Arab Palestinians have been disinclined to move from one region to another within Palestine. Any analysis of the patterns of migration in historic Palestine proves that this is entirely false. The Arabs historically were largely migratory people and Arab leaders have testified to that fact numerous times. The Arabs came when the Jews started investing in the land making the land economically attractive""

I don't think your argument is strong. The Jewish historical claim is long out of date. Continous presence alone is not enough because the Arabs had this same continuous presence argument and in much larger numbers. In the democratic times that we live in having the numbers on the ground is they key issue and even assuming your numbers and I think most of your assumptions then you say yourself that the Jews were in a very substantial minority right up to at least 1922. Indeed outnumbered by three to one at all relevant times.

I would highly recommend everyone rent a movie I recently watched titled: "Rabbit-Proof Fence". This takes place in the 1930's Australia; not the 1800's. It's based on the true story of Australia's method of dealing with the Aborigines, after they stopped the wholesale slaughter of them, and the attempt at eugenics to eradicate the "half-castes"; those of Anglo-Aboriginal heritage. The result was "The Lost Generations" which is still a highly charged subject, there.

[Kapiti]

Johnyuma- Australians have done various things for which I am very embarrased. I have not seen the movie but believe it was quite powerful.

I don't think it is accurate to say that they were trying to eradicate the half castes and the government at the time believed that what it was doing was actually in the best interest of the children abducted.

Nevertheless a very wrong thing to do.

If you want to shoot me let me do it myself in the foot. This example has nothing on what the early white Australians did to the Tasmanian Aboriginals. This is truely shameful.

MGB8- I don't think your history is correct. I understand that during the 1948-1967 period there was agitation by the people of the WB and Gaza to attain independance.

I am interested in more information on your comments that Yasser Arafat publically disclaimed interest in an independant Palestine. Can you provide a link or more evidence.

Communication - Lateness is a question of timing. It does not matter why and your explanation is irrelevant.

I think I got the Balfour declaration mixed up with the Mandate.

"If you are unwilling to even consider our historic claim, tell me why I should consider yours? " The Palestinian historical claim is much more recent and is much stronger because of the numbers. We live in democratic times where strength is numbers is paramount.

"What entitles you to even have an oppinion in this matter, let alone to decide whoose oppinions count and whoose don't based only on the criteria that you select. You are very arrogant" Careful. I respect you but don't push it. Your language is not friendly. Of course I can have an opinion. Thats the idea of this whole forum. The criteria upon which I judge history is fair I think.

If there is arrogance displayed it is here " Good, so I somehow managed to get you to admit two things" You got me to admit nothing. What I said was simply my view on things which I volonteered. Why don't you ask me some other opinions.

For instance
I belive for that settlements to secure Isaeli security are fair and reasonable and I believe that exchange of land as you I think proposed should happen to make the borders fairer and more realistic.
(All based on the idea that the total land of the WB and G does not shrink.)

I suspect that if Israel had not attacked in 1967 it would have been attacked.

Ask away and sometimes you may be surprised.

[Mediocrates]

Every time you and yours say NO you get offered less the next time 'round. You should learn something from that. Maybe when Palestine is the size or Central Park you will, who knows. But making grandiose claims is literally meaningless and more to the point ineffective. So keep waving your arms and making ultimatums.

[Communication]

Kapiti,

You started off the thread by making statements like this:

"All the Jews who were kicked out of the West Bank and Gaza after 1948 should have fair right of return. Equally all the Palestinians kicked out of Israel at the same time have an equal right of return. You want hypocrisy I’ll show it to you.

To suggest that a swap of Arab Israelis out of Israel for an equal swap of Jews out of Palestine is ludicrous because it equates the rights of the Jews to the Palestinian land to the rights of the Arab Israelis to the Israeli land.

If it initally takes a Jew free Palestine to get real peace however then all the Jews should get out of the region."


and then you went on to say:

"At the time of the original mandate the British were not in control of the area. Consaquently it really does not matter what they said at that time..." and then you go on to demonstrate why you think that the jewish claim is lost because of the passage of time and that was all Arab land because of demographics.

You were all over the place in this thread, Kapiti. If what you really meant to say was that in your oppinion, you didn't think that the Palestinians deserved a right of return and that the Jews had a good claim to part of Palestine, why did you say things that contradict that? The whole point of Mediocrates post was to demonstrate that in contrast to the way settlers are depicted in the media, most of them are not gun-toting religious extremists.

Also, I'm tired of you dismissing what I say as "irrelevent" when my point is that you can't be "late" when the possability to be "on time" wasn't there to begin with. It's an important point that I'm trying to make because of another point you keep mentioning in this thread, which is that the Jews lost their claim to the land because of the passage of time. When people say that, it makes it seem that we simply gave up on trying to return and that when we finally did try, we were simply "too late." But we did try. We weren't "late," we just didn't have the means to succeed at the time. We didn't have an army. The British weren't more "on time" they were just better prepared than us when they tried.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
I don't think it is accurate to say that they were trying to eradicate the half castes and the government at the time believed that what it was doing was actually in the best interest of the children abducted.

Nevertheless a very wrong thing to do.



It is absolutely accurate and I stand by my post. Eradicating the half-castes was precisely and absolutely the stated policy and objective of the Aboriginal Protectorate set up under the Aborigines Act. Children were still being removed from their parents until 1970. We're not talking ancient history here, kiddo.

[Kapiti]

Johny Yuma - I am not going to argue with you. Big mistakes have been made.

Communication - Sorry the first part of your last post I don't follow. My original post could have been clearer by subsituting the word "all Jews should get out of West Bank/Gaza" instead of "all jews should get out of the region". Not sure this is worth pursuing.

"Late" Everyone has an excuse for why they weren't able to do something. Saying that the Jewish colonisation/immigration of Israel was late does not imply that you gave up trying. I don't know why you would say this.

I also don't understand why it is especially relevant whether you had or did not have an army or whether you tried or did not try to re-establish control.

The Arabs had been living in Israel as a substantial majority for more than a thousand years. I simply do not understand why the Jewish claim to the land has priority over theirs. In terms of claims to possesion recent history has priority over ancient history. This is simply common sense.

The British also were late but not as late in gaining control. They took over from the Turks just before colonies world wide were beginning to establish their independance.

You say that the British were not more "on time" that the Jews. This is simply wrong. On the basis as I have been arguing that colonisation was a phenomen of the 18th and 19th centuries mostly, then 1920 is 28 years closer to this period (when conquest was the law of the day) than 1948.

In terms of being able to take control of another land in an " internationally socially acceptable way", the British very much were more "on time". They also had a good army.

[frizzer1]

Both the jews and the arabs have valid claims to palestine.I am not going to hash over all the old arguments.
It seems to me that the only fair solution is to partition Palestine into 2 separate states, a jewish one and an arab one.
What do y'all think?

[old-reb]

Originally posted by Kapiti

The Arabs had been living in Israel as a substantial majority for more than a thousand years. I simply do not understand why the Jewish claim to the land has priority over theirs. In terms of claims to possesion recent history has priority over ancient history. This is simply common sense.



The Jewish immigrants came to their bibical homeland to live in peace but the Muslims incited riots and slaughtered the Jews by the thousands.
This left the remaining jews no choice but to arm themselves and create a democratic government where all people could worship as they pleased.

Are their any synagogus in muslim palestine where jews can worship in peace? There are plenty of Mosque in Israel and Muslims are free.

As for trading immigrants, who would want to leave a land of freedom to a Muslim land where you must follow islam or be crushed.

old reb

[Mediocrates]

But none of this history is entirely relevant. There are no objective facts in history. At any rate people would tell you they and they alone have the magic number that justifies it all. X number of Arabs means it's theirs, Y number of Jews means something else. No it doesn't. What is important is that when you look at a map, this claim of 'occu[pation' or invasion is bogus. Flat out bogus.

[old-reb]

If Islam was the religon of peace and love as they claim their would be no need for an Israel state. As it is there is no need for a Islamic state that commits genocide on anybody trying to exercise religious freedom.

old reb

[MGB8]

Kapiti,

This claim that there was agitiation in the WB/Gaza pre-67 for independance is new and COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED - PROVE IT. Find some reliable documentation.

There IS reliable documentation for the FACT that Arafat and the formative PLO denied ANY CLAIM TO THE WB and GAZA (pre 67) saying it was rightfully Jordanian and Egyptian. This documentation has been presented HERE, on this forum, before, but I will look for it again when I have the time.

However, in short, YOU ARE WRONG. Period.

[MGB8]

Jews have claims to more of the mideast than just Israel - from Sinai onwards. Also, just because they both have claims DOES NOT MEAN THOSE CLAIMS ARE EQUAL.

Moreover, you seem to IGNORE post 1947 history. IT WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO STATES! The Arabs rejected it. They lost. THEY NEED TO GROW UP AS A PEOPLE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS. THey are like whiney children.

When they lost those wars, they lost their claims (moreover, they have rejected their own claims to the WB and Gaza.)

The ONLY reason to have a Pal-Arab state is the demographic reason - and that reason is half to blame on Israel, which allowed MASSIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from Jordan and to a lesser extent, Egypt, post 1967.


Originally posted by old-reb
The Jewish immigrants came to their bibical homeland to live in peace but the Muslims incited riots and slaughtered the Jews by the thousands.
This left the remaining jews no choice but to arm themselves and create a democratic government where all people could worship as they pleased.

Are their any synagogus in muslim palestine where jews can worship in peace? There are plenty of Mosque in Israel and Muslims are free.

As for trading immigrants, who would want to leave a land of freedom to a Muslim land where you must follow islam or be crushed.

old reb

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by MGB8
Jews have claims to more of the mideast than just Israel - from Sinai onwards. Also, just because they both have claims DOES NOT MEAN THOSE CLAIMS ARE EQUAL.

Moreover, you seem to IGNORE post 1947 history. IT WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO STATES! The Arabs rejected it. They lost. THEY NEED TO GROW UP AS A PEOPLE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS. THey are like whiney children.

When they lost those wars, they lost their claims (moreover, they have rejected their own claims to the WB and Gaza.)

The ONLY reason to have a Pal-Arab state is the demographic reason - and that reason is half to blame on Israel, which allowed MASSIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from Jordan and to a lesser extent, Egypt, post 1967.

I'm not sure if you're responsing to my post, but your comments above are exactly what I was trying to point out..that it had already been done & look at what happened.
I was being facetious..guess I should have used a smiley :)